The class-conscious proletariat can give its consent to a revolutionary war, which would really justify revolutionary defencism, only on condition: (a) that the power pass to the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants aligned with the proletariat; (b) that all annexations be renounced in deed and not in word; (c) that a complete break be effected in actual fact with all capitalist interests.

In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the twelling mass believers in revolutionary defencism who accept the war only as a necessity, and not as a means of conquest, in view of the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them, to explain the inseparable connection existing between capital and the imperialist war, and to prove that without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace, a peace not imposed by violence.

Nationalization of all lands in the country, the land to be disposed of by the local people’s governments. The setting up of a model farm according to local and other conditions, and to the decisions of the local bodies under the control of the local people’s government.

The immediate amalgamation of all banks in the country into a single national bank, and the institution of control over it by the Council of the Proletariat.

It is not our immediate task to “introduce” socialism, but only to bring social production and the distribution of products at once under the control of the Council of the Proletariat.
We must take the initiative in creating a revolutionary International, an International against the social-chauvinists and against the running dogs of imperialism.

Note: This post got nothing to do with the above article. I couldn’t find an appropriate place to post it, so, I thought I might as well post it here, to let you guys know that I am happy to have ‘Samudaya’ back.

I guess, we need to designate a day to celebrate yet another Easter on the Resurrection of ‘Samudaya.org’ and paint some ‘kha-rayo ko anda’.

I find this site more interesting compared to other Nepali sites. May be, because, sense and non-sense I say gets reciprocated in the same spirit.

But, you guys have complicated more — already complicated cyber-life, by mandating to register to post comments at your site and hence all the misery of having to remember ‘username’ and ‘password’ among other numerous usernames/passwords you own.

Otherwise, my perfectly fine memory, I should be thanking you, which is very shortly, when I will be shooting a mail to you guys under the subject of ‘forgot my password’, and helping me to aggrandize my doubt that I suffer from ADD or have early symptoms of an Amnesia.

But, seer pleasure of writing all these sense/non-sense and have you guys read it, sure does alleviate my discomfort of having to remember my username/password.

In his famous work The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, Karl
Marx had said: “Hegel observes somewhere that all great incidents and
individuals of world history occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the
first time as tragedy, the second as farce.” It was while drawing a parallel
between the coup of 1851 by Napoleon’s nephew Louis Bonaparte, who had then
crowned himself as Napoleon III, and the original Napoleonic coup of 1799. Of
course, this was in a satirical sense.

Similar law of Hegelian dialectics seems to be in operation in the
history of Nepal, too. While the father, King Mahendra, had staged a military
coup on December 16, 1960 against the first parliamentary democracy established
after 1950 to centralise all power in himself, now the son, King Gyanendra, has
staged another military coup on February 1, 2005 against the second
parliamentary democracy restored after 1990 and centralised all state power in
himself. However, for the politically enlightened ones, it is not difficult to
see beneath the surface that this episode of February 1 is merely a continuation
or culmination of the episode of June 1, 2001, when the relatively more weak or
liberal King Birendra, along with his entire family, was butchered and a new
dynasty ushered in by Gyanendra. This way, the “First February” of the Nepalese
history seems to be a carbon copy of the “Eighteenth Brumaire” of the French
history; but it is yet to be seen whether it will be more ‘tragic’ or more
‘farcical’.

Firstly, it should be acknowledged that struggle between social
classes provides the basic motive forces of societal development. The present
Nepalese society in a semi-feudal and semi-colonial stage is a multi-class
society, and the principal struggle there is among the feudal, the bourgeois and
the proletarian classes. All the three principle contending classes have their
allies, too. The traditionally dominant feudal class has the comprador and
bureaucratic bourgeoisie with it; the small and weak bourgeois class has a
section of the rural and urban petty-bourgeois class with it; and the
proletariat has the vast number of poor peasants and semi-proletariat with it.
This basically triangular class contention is increasingly turning into a
bi-polar contention after the initiation and development of revolutionary
People’s War under the leadership of the proletariat since 1996. In other words,
according to the law of class struggle and social development , the parasitic
reactionary classes are polarised on one side under the leadership of the most
capable and strong class among themselves, and on the other side are rallied the
working and the progressive classes under the leadership of the most advanced
class, the proletariat. As the monarchy representing the feudal and comprador
and bureaucratic bourgeois classes is historically the strongest representative
of the reactionary classes in Nepal, the parasitic classes most adversely
affected by the revolutionary People’s War have been increasingly rallying under
the leadership of the monarchy. This is the rationale and essence of the current
royal regression or the restoration of autocratic monarchy in the social class
terms. The regressive march of the reactionary classes in opposition to the
progressive march of the working classes is perfectly in keeping with the
dialectical law of social development.

Secondly, viewing from a further political angle, it should be
acknowledged that the inherent defects and weaknesses of the bourgeois
parliamentary democracy established after 1990 and the general infirmity and
incapacity of the middle strata and forces also provided an objective basis for
the ultimate feudal autocratic regression. Historically, the major parliamentary
political forces, viz. the Nepali Congress and later the revisionist UML, enjoy
no independent class base of their own, and tend to represent a hodge-podge of
class forces ranging from the feudals and comprador and bureaucratic bourgeoisie
to the petty-bourgeoisie and constantly take vacillating and conciliatory
political positions. Contrary to this, the monarchy traditionally draws its
strength from the prevailing feudal property and cultural relations, and
principally, from its monopoly hold over the Royal Nepal Army (RNA). To be more
specific, the political change and the Constitution of 1990 did not properly
settle the question of ‘state sovereignty’ traditionally claimed by the monarchy
and left the final ‘state authority’ and strategic control over the RNA in the
hands of the monarchy. This ‘historical blunder’ (to paraphrase Jyoti Basu from
India!) paved the way for the monarchy to gradually gobble up the parliament and
the Constitution and consummate the current royal regression. Moreover, the
parliamentary forces during their twelve years long rule in between did nothing
to bring about a progressive transformation in the traditionally feudal and
increasingly comprador and bureaucratic capitalist socio-economic and cultural
base of the society. In the later period, particularly along with the rapid
development of the revolutionary People’s War, their class and political base
got further eroded. As a result, the upper strata of the society which had
backed the parliamentary forces after the political change of 1990 gradually
returned back to the fold of the monarchy and the lower and a section of the
middle strata naturally got polarized around the revolutionary People’s War.
This dilemma of the reformist parliamentary forces has been summed up in
Chairman Com. Prachanda’s recent People’s War Anniversary statement thus:
“Ultimately, the so-called royal proclamation of February 1 has not only exposed
the irrelevance of reformism in the Nepalese politics, but also shattered the
collective lethargy of the parliamentary political forces.”

Thirdly, from a military point of view, this action of total
centralization of the old state authority in the absolute monarchy can been as
an attempt of the moribund reactionary classes to wage a final battle with the
revolutionary forces in the ever mounting class war in the country. In view of
the recent declaration of the CPN (Maoist) to lead the nine-year old
revolutionary People’s War into the final and decisive stage of strategic
offensive, it is not unnatural, though foolish, for the frightened reactionary
classes to attempt to wage a final battle of life and death under the direct
leadership of the monarchy, which has assumed supreme commandership of the RNA
since its inception. In the recent past the pathetic showing of the RNA in
almost every real battle with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has been blamed
by certain quarters on the contradictions of de jure political leadership of the
parliamentary forces and de facto leadership of the monarchy over the RNA, Also,
it is not hard to understand the super military ambitions of Gyanendra, who has
grabbed the throne by butchering the entire family of his brother, Birendra, to
project himself as the great savior of his tottering feudal and
comprador-bureaucratic bourgeois class. Nevertheless, as any common student of
military science would know, the victory or defeat of a particular army
ultimately depends more on its social class base and the political goal rather
than on the leadership prowess of its commander, and in that sense the ultimate
defeat of the reactionary RNA should be a foregone conclusion and Gyanendra’s
dream would be mere chimera.

Role of the International Forces
In the present day world of imperialist globalization any internal
political event has more international ramifications than ever before. Hence the
February 1 royal regression has generated worldwide reactions, and all major
world and regional powers and organizations, including the UN, the USA, the UK,
the EU, India, China and others have issued public statements on the question.
Surprisingly none of the major international players have supported Gyanendra’s
regressive steps so far. Not only that the major powers like the USA, the UK,
the EU and India, which have been the principal props for the reactionary
regimes in Nepal in the past, have publicly opposed the current developments,
and others like China, Russia, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc. have commented upon the
events as ‘internal affairs of Nepal’. The most significant international
development has been the suspension of military aid by India and the UK (the USA
also appears to be toeing the same line) and suspension of ‘development aid’ by
a number of EU countries. International human rights organisations such as the
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc., have publicly denounced the
royal regime for its rampant violations of human and democratic rights of the
people. Thus the autocratic royal regime has been totally isolated from the
international community so far, which is a good omen for the democratic
movement.

However, the despotic regime is desperately seeking to exploit two
issues to gain international support for itself. The first is the
‘anti-terrorism’ card, and the second, the ‘geo-political’ card. The hackneyed
‘anti-terrorism’ card, much exploited after September Eleven by all and sundry
petty dictators and reactionary regimes of the world, has already lost much of
its original steam and is yet to be seen how it will fare in Gyanendra’s case.
But one can be fairly certain that the enlightened world public opinion won’t be
easily hoodwinked by the ‘anti-terrorism’ claims of a person of Gyanendra’s ilk,
whose hands are blood-stained in the infamous palace massacre and who has now
launched a countryside reign of military terror against the people by suspending
all political and fundamental rights. Nevertheless, as all the values and norms
in a class-divided society are governed by class interests, it won’t be
surprising if some of the reactionary rulers of the world would ultimately back
the regressive royal regime, overtly or covertly.

As far as the ‘geo-political’ card of the country’s strategic
positioning between the two super-states of China and India is concerned,
Gyanendra’s attempts to repeat the skillful diplomatic maneuvering of playing
one neighbour against the other as practiced by his father, Mahendra, in the
specific cold-war context of the last century cannot be expected to bear much
fruit in the changed situation of international balance of forces in general and
the India-China relations in particular. The recent coming together of the USA
and India and their coordinated policy against royal regression may tempt
Gyanendra to play the China card. He has given enough hints of this by
appointing the old royalist Kirti Nidhi Bista with a known pro-China tilt as one
of his principle associates in the government. Similarly, Pakistan and
Bangladesh, with traditional contradictions with India, may provide some
breathing space for the royal regime; some indications of which have already
come from the Pakistani ambassador in Kathmandu. However, given the extremely
shaky position and uncertain future of Gyanendra himself, it is hard to believe
that any of the neighbours will go beyond diplomatic niceties to extend him any
substantial material help. Similarly, on the part of the proletarian
revolutionaries they should be prudent enough to practice strategic firmness and
tactical flexibility in the matters of diplomatic relations particularly with
the immediate neighbours.

Another noteworthy factor in recent days is the indication of some
positive change in the attitude of major international and regional powers
towards the revolutionary forces in Nepal. Due to their own distorted class
outlook and interests, these major powers in the past used to regard the
monarchy and the parliamentary forces as the so-called ‘two pillars of
stability’, and they were seen working hard to bring about a grand alliance
between the two against the revolutionary democratic forces. Now they seem to be
increasingly veering round a ‘three pillar’ theory, including the revolutionary
forces; which is, of course, a step forward. But the historical necessity and
the new objective reality of the country is that the new ‘two pillars’ of
parliamentary and revolutionary democratic forces join hands to uproot the
outdated and rotten third ‘pillar’ of monarchy. The CPN(Maoist) has already made
a policy decision to this effect, which is reflected in the recent Anniversary
statement issued by the Great Chairman Comrade Prachanda.

LONG LIVE THE VICTORY OF THE PEOPLE’S WAR!

DEATH TO THE INFIDELS AND THE RUNNING DOGS OF IMPERIALISM!

Long live the victory of people’s war

Needless to say, you are an ardent proponent of communism, but it would be tad presumptuous on my part to insinuate that you are also a cadre to the Maoist movement in Nepal. But, even if you are one, that’s just fine with me, since no amount of ideology, is going to bring about the changes until they are put into action, besides every ideologues need foot soldiers. If so, then they must have christened you with a ‘nom de guerre’ like everyone else has one, like—Prachanda, Badal, Chatyang, Huri-batas, Ashina etc. (What’s with meteorology and Maoist?).

Let me guess, yours would be ‘Avatar’ as in Prophet, since Mosses, no one has tried so hard to sell his ideas (Ten Commandments) as you are trying here at Samudaya.org to propagate ‘Ganatantra’. Even, Mosses needed the Burning Bush for revelation, so, you need to have one too.

Apparently, yours was not as arduous as climbing Mount Sinai, you just had to go to different websites and reproduce the works of others.

1. http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1917/apr/07.htm for comment #1

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0305commentary.htm for comment #2
I don’t blame you either, in proletariat universe; there is no notion of proprietorship hence no concept of plagiarism.

Do us a favor next time; just post the url to the site, so that we don’t have to wade through your muck.

Foot Note: If it is true, what Maosits in Nepal claim to be their number, then, they must be running out of names, since there are not as many elements as there are head counts in their organization. It would be tragicomic to have you named after cuisines or vegetables—Sel-roti, Papad, Momo-cha, Gol-veda, Vanta, Kauli, Iskus etc.

To: Long live the victory of people’s war

“DEATH TO THE INFIDELS AND THE RUNNING DOGS OF IMPERIALISM! ”

Fine with the death to the infidels and such, but seriously dude, chill out… what’s with the agression against Dogs? Dogs are in fact one of the most loyal of animals that I know of. You;d know too if you;d ever had a dog as a pet….